Yes: This treaty is good for us, says Michael Heseltine

12:01AM BST 26 Apr 2004

The final text has yet to be agreed, but - assuming agreement is reached and the Government sticks to its "red lines" of retaining the national veto on tax, foreign policy and defence - the EU's proposed constitutional treaty will be good for Britain.

The case for the treaty is simple: if it is in Britain's interest to be in the EU, then it is also in our interest that the EU work well. Britain can often achieve more together with our European partners than we can alone. The new treaty will help us do so more effectively - but without creating a European superstate.

The rules of the European club have long needed updating to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. But the EU's eastward enlargement on May 1 makes this need much more pressing.

Saturday will be a momentous day in European history. A continent divided first by the Second World War and then by the Cold War will be reunited within the European Union, as it admits 10 new countries, eight of which suffered decades of Communist dictatorship.

It is a triumph for Europe, for Britain and for Conservatives in particular: we stood firm against the Soviet threat and have led the push for a wider EU.

But if an enlarged EU is not to come to a standstill, its decision-making needs streamlining: rules and institutions designed for a Europe of Six need reforming to cope with a Europe of 25.

The new treaty will make it easier to secure decisions in areas where agreement is reached by qualified majority voting - areas of vital importance to Britain such as trade, asylum and immigration.

Another change is that instead of rotating the presidency of the European Council, the grouping of EU leaders, among countries every six months, a president will be appointed for a full two years.

The new chair will help drive forward national governments' common agenda - of economic reform, for instance. The European Commission will also be slimmed down, to keep costs down and the number of commissioners manageable.

In this new, more effective Europe, nation states will be firmly in the driving seat. The treaty makes it crystal clear that the EU is a union of nation states, each with their own elected government, not a European superstate.

It explicitly states that the EU's powers derive from its member states, not the other way round. The Council of Ministers, which brings together ministers from member states, will remain the highest legislative body in the EU. Moreover, the treaty significantly enhances the role of national parliaments. It proposes that if a third of them oppose a piece of EU legislation they would have the right to force the European Commission to review it.

In place of the fuzzy commitment to "ever-closer union" - which left open the possibility that the EU might one day become a fully-fledged federal state - the treaty defines clearly what the EU can and cannot do.

For the first time, the limits of EU powers are defined in one document. Only three policy areas will be the exclusive responsibility of the EU - as they are now. Countries will retain their veto in core areas of national sovereignty, such as tax, foreign policy and defence. No wonder Continental federalists bemoan the fact that this treaty is a "British" document.

The truth about the constitutional treaty is rather prosaic. Yet in conjuring up scare stories about what it might mean, anti-Europeans have let their imagination run wild.

Start with the canard that this treaty is a constitution: it is not. A constitution sets out the basic laws of a state; this is a treaty - an agreement between governments - that sets out the basic rules of the European club, which member states have freely joined, and includes provisions for them to leave if they wish to.

The new treaty will not "take precedence over all British laws and constitutional practices". EU law has had primacy over British law ever since we joined the Common Market in 1973 - but only in areas where Britain has agreed it should: in trade policy, for instance, or enforcing the single market.

Nor will Britain lose controls of its borders and immigration policy, as some have claimed. In fact, the treaty provides for "enhanced measures" to control illegal immigration, with the EU adopting a common approach to prevent illegal immigrants being passed from country to country.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights that is included in the treaty will not restrict employees' working hours, give soldiers the right to strike or prevent Britain limiting benefits to asylum seekers. The Charter's provisions do not apply to all European citizens: they apply only to member states when they are implementing EU laws.

Will Britain lose its seat on the UN Security Council? Will we be forced to join the euro? Will the Queen no longer be our head of state? No, no and no. Nor will the EU have the power to impose new taxes on us. The EU has no right to levy taxes and its spending is capped at 1.27 per cent of EU GDP.

I have no doubt that we will hear more such rubbish from anti-Europeans in the months ahead. But if we stick to the facts, there can be no doubt that the constitutional treaty is good for Britain. A more effective union of 25 nation states is in all our national interests.